U Not Gonna Like This

This article from Fathers Unite (link):



Glen Sacks recently covered the issue of military men who return from a tour of duty to find themselves stripped of their parental responsibilities or facing jail because they are behind in child support. The military divorce rate is higher than that of the general population; therefore, military men are at greater risk for being treated like second class citizens. So what incentive men into joining the military when they are guaranteed t be treated as second class citizens as a Father both inside and outside the military?



Joining or being in the military is an act of patriotism and is a noble act; but what if that patriotism does not take into account the Stalinist (anti-)Family courts? The Wisconsin Plan, the plan most state base their (anti-)Family Law, is modeled after the Stalinist Russia's Family law code; right down to the percentage taken from men to "support their children". Never mind the inherent difference in the Communist and Free market system; twenty-five percent of a communist's income where taxes are not taken out and housing is provided by the state is far different from taking the same percentage from a free market's income where taxes and housing account for a significant percentage of overall expenditures.



Since the goal of Communism is to achieve a socialist utopia where everything, including children, are 'owned' by the collective, by what right did the United States adopt such a policy that is foreign to our Constitution? At the start of our union, the Common Law defined that a unmarried woman held 'title to the custody' of her children and married men held 'title to the custody' of his children. Title being the indication of the right of property which protected the children from state involvement. Then around 1830 or so the judiciary, without citing any organic law, began to introduce the 'Tender Years' doctrine; which, at the time was gaining popularity in Britain and in Europe. Despite the fact that parent's rights with respect to their children was a 'right of property' with greater protections, judges began interfering with this right of married men but not the identical right of unmarried women. But wait a minute, doesn't a right of property require a jury trial in the United States? Does the judiciary have the right to increase judicial discression in a Constitutional Republic where jury trials are a sacred right? Aren't jury trial a check on government - and in this case judicial - tyranny?



The answer historically given by government apologists has been the legislature must be called upon to change the laws. But what about the rights of the citizens? The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers debated the various ways tyrannies that could arise in this Republic. These debates clearly state that each person is a sovereign individual and has certain (God given) rights that the state can not intrude on.



Hence the state does not, via the legislature or judiciary, have the right to arbitrary change certain things; in this case a right more precious than that of property. Nowhere in either the Common Law or Federal or any State Constitution(s) does it say the parent child relationship is defined by the state. The Common Law only allowed the state to interfere in the parent child relationship if the child needed rescuing. Only governments based on Marxist philosophies allow the state to make decisions for children. Even in the case of divorce, the Common Law did not allow any judicial discretion by the state; except in the extreme case where the child needed rescuing.



A country that was founded on God given rights means that those rights are inalienable or unalienable. The Protestant Founding Fathers included scripture in the Federalist papers. They believed that the individual stood before God, not the collective. Common Law and Natural Law rights were derived over the millennium to correspond to human nature in a free societies. When the state defines rights or makes itself the fountainhead of rights it can use Orwellian logic to redefine rights and hence individuals are no longer sovereign. Historically, when the state (re)defines behavior, million must be re-educated or killed in order to further the state's ideology; e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, ..., etc., and their fellow ideologues all had a dream; that dream turned into a nightmare for tens of millions. These variations on Marxism tallied more victims in the name of achieving an ideal collective utopia than any other cause or disease in the history of mankind. It has been said that Marxism is a good idea just applied to the wrong species; they fail to point out the human toll of this forced ideology has resulted in which makes it more than just a bad idea.



The state has decided that the right to recreational coitus is solely a female right. Men who engage in any form of sex which result in seminal discharge are at risk for 18 to 24 years of indentured servitude, involuntary servitude, slavery, and state peonage. Even thirteen year old boys who are raped can expect to have their lunch money confiscated by the state in the name of the greater good of the collective (i.e., society). Women, on the other hand can treat each act of coitus according to her free will given the choices of the pill, the morning after pill, an abortion, a late term abortion, dropping the child off at safe-house, giving the child up for adoption, or even raising the child alone. Under Common Law, the marriage or comparable contract or accepting children outside of a contract of their own free will was the only way to bind a man to the care and maintenance of offspring. The person with the title to the custody of the children and enjoyed their companionship had a reciprocal obligation to support the child(ren). Today that reciprocal relationship has been abolished. Divorced or never married men have less rights than criminals yet these men may never have committed a crime.



When we see that the armed forces are well behind in their recruiting efforts because of the war we should also ask why should men participate in their own destruction? They should not. Volunteering for the armed services is a noble endeavor but since men are the only ones in combat and they are currently being treated like second class citizens - both inside or outside the military - men should ask themselves if they should boycott this noble profession until their rights and this Republic is restored. This call for a boycott should be echoed by all fathers rights groups across the nation. Men should not die to protect the right of the government to treat them as second class citizens.




Mark